↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : COM001-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 12:11:03 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.63s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    5
%            Number of leaves      :    7
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   23 (  12 unt;   0 nHn;  23 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   40 (   0 equ;  20 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    2 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    5 (   4 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    4 (   4 usr;   3 con; 0-1 aty)
%            Number of variables   :   26 (   0 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(direct_success,axiom,
    ( ~ follows(X1,X2)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',direct_success) ).

cnf(goto_success,axiom,
    ( ~ labels(X3,X1)
    | ~ has(X2,goto(X3))
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goto_success) ).

cnf(transitivity_of_success,axiom,
    ( ~ succeeds(X3,X2)
    | ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transitivity_of_success) ).

cnf(transition_3_to_8,hypothesis,
    follows(p8,p3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transition_3_to_8) ).

cnf(label_state_3,hypothesis,
    labels(loop,p3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',label_state_3) ).

cnf(state_8,hypothesis,
    has(p8,goto(loop)),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',state_8) ).

cnf(prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3,negated_conjecture,
    ~ succeeds(p3,p3),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3) ).

cnf(c_0_7,plain,
    ( ~ follows(X1,X2)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[direct_success]) ).

cnf(c_0_8,plain,
    ( ~ labels(X3,X1)
    | ~ has(X2,goto(X3))
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goto_success]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,plain,
    ( ~ succeeds(X3,X2)
    | ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[transitivity_of_success]) ).

cnf(c_0_10,plain,
    ( ~ follows(X1,X2)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_7 ).

cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
    follows(p8,p3),
    transition_3_to_8 ).

cnf(c_0_12,plain,
    ( ~ labels(X3,X1)
    | ~ has(X2,goto(X3))
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_8 ).

cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
    labels(loop,p3),
    label_state_3 ).

cnf(c_0_14,plain,
    ( ~ succeeds(X3,X2)
    | ~ succeeds(X1,X3)
    | succeeds(X1,X2) ),
    c_0_9 ).

cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
    succeeds(p8,p3),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).

cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
    ( ~ has(X1,goto(loop))
    | succeeds(p3,X1) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).

cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
    has(p8,goto(loop)),
    state_8 ).

cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
    ~ succeeds(p3,p3),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_there_is_a_loop_through_p3]) ).

cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
    ( ~ succeeds(X1,p8)
    | succeeds(X1,p3) ),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).

cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
    succeeds(p3,p8),
    inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).

cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
    ~ succeeds(p3,p3),
    c_0_18 ).

cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_21]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02  % Problem  : COM001-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.57  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.57  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.57  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.57  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.57  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.57  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.57  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.10/0.57  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:13:42 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.57  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.10/0.57  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.61  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.61  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.14/0.63  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.63  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.63  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with pid 1068863 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Result found by G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 0.14/0.63  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.63  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.63  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.63  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.63  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % new_bool_1 with pid 1068871 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.14/0.63  % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.63  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.63  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.63  % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.63  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.63  % Preprocessing time       : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.63  % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.63  
% 0.14/0.63  % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.63  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.63  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.63  % Parsed axioms                        : 11
% 0.14/0.63  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Initial clauses                      : 11
% 0.14/0.63  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 11
% 0.14/0.63  % Processed clauses                    : 30
% 0.14/0.63  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % ...remaining for further processing  : 30
% 0.14/0.63  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Backward-rewritten                   : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Generated clauses                    : 12
% 0.14/0.63  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 11
% 0.14/0.63  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Paramodulations                      : 12
% 0.14/0.63  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Equation resolutions                 : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Total rewrite steps                  : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.14/0.63  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.14/0.63  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.14/0.63  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.14/0.63  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.14/0.63  % Current number of processed clauses  : 19
% 0.14/0.63  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 11
% 0.14/0.63  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.63  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.14/0.63  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 7
% 0.14/0.63  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.14/0.63  % ...number of literals in the above   : 4
% 0.14/0.63  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Current number of archived clauses   : 11
% 0.14/0.63  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 24
% 0.14/0.63  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 24
% 0.14/0.63  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % BW rewrite match successes           : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.14/0.63  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 360
% 0.14/0.63  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 20
% 0.14/0.63  
% 0.14/0.63  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.63  % User time                : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.63  % System time              : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.63  % Total time               : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.63  % Maximum resident set size: 3584 pages
% 0.14/0.63  
% 0.14/0.63  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.63  % User time                : 0.012 s
% 0.14/0.63  % System time              : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.63  % Total time               : 0.021 s
% 0.14/0.63  % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.63  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------